Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with a safe read operation. It adds domain context and returned fields, but does not disclose pagination behavior, sorting, auth requirements, or response shape beyond the endpoint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences: resource definition, usage note, and endpoint. The resource definition is front-loaded and no sentence is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a low-complexity list tool with fully described parameters and read-only annotations, the description covers what funds are, key fields, and how the returned ids/names are used. It does not detail return pagination or total counts, but the schema covers paging inputs; the description is nearly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Both parameters (limit, offset) are fully described in the schema, and the description does not add any parameter-level meaning. Under the 100% schema coverage baseline, a 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource ('Funds'), its domain role ('where gifts are designated'), and the fields returned ('campaign, code, financial goal and active flag'). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools such as lgl_list_campaigns or lgl_list_appeals, so it is clear but lacks sibling-specific routing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implies a use case by saying to use the ids and names when recording gifts or filtering searches, but it never states when to call this tool rather than lgl_list_campaigns, lgl_list_appeals, or lgl_search_gifts. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.